Challengers to California's ban on same-sex marriage leave the Supreme Court on March 26 after hearing oral arguments in the case. / Pablo Martinez Monsivais AP

by Richard Wolf and Brad Heath, USA TODAY

by Richard Wolf and Brad Heath, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court gave a double-barreled boost to gay and lesbian rights Wednesday, upholding a California ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the nation's largest state and striking down a federal law that denied benefits to those already married in 12 states.

The dual decisions, rendered by separate coalitions of liberal and some conservative justices, give the high court's mixed blessing to a gay-marriage movement that has gained momentum in the past decade and now stands on the threshold of full equality.

The court all but lifted a 5-year-old voter ban on same-sex marriage in California by declaring that its backers lacked standing to challenge lower court rulings against it. California Gov. Edmund Brown directed that counties begin issuing marriage licenses as soon as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals confirms that the injunction against gay marriages has been lifted.

"After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California," Brown said.

That 5-4 decision, which did not address the merits of same-sex marriage, was written by Chief Justice John Roberts with Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan in the majority. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

And the justices declared unconstitutional the part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to gays and lesbians legally married in a dozen states, from Maine to Washington, and the District of Columbia.

That 5-4 ruling was authored by Kennedy, the court's swing vote, who was joined by the four liberal justices. "The avowed purpose" of DOMA, Kennedy said, was "to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma" on gays and lesbians seeking to wed.

The four other conservatives dissented -- Scalia in angry fashion from the bench. He accused the majority of sending this message: "'Hate your neighbor, or come along with us.'

"We might have let the people decide," he groused.

Taken together, the rulings represent a major step forward for marriage equality and a huge setback for defenders of traditional marriage between only a man and a woman.

There was cheering on Air Force one as President Obama headed to Africa on a state visit. He called Edie Windsor, the 83-year-old lesbian widow who brought the challenge against the Defense of Marriage Act, as well as the two same-sex couples who challenged California's marriage ban while he was en route. And in a statement, Obama lauded the court's action.

"The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts: when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free," Obama said.

GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT RETURNS TO STATES

Advocates for same-sex marriage instantly hailed the two decisions as a huge victory. "Today's historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality," said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign. "Marriages in California are expected to begin again soon."

Conservatives, meanwhile, breathed a sigh of relief that the court did not go further. "While we are disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision to strike down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the court today did not impose the sweeping nationwide redefinition of natural marriage that was sought," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said.

The California decision will raise to 30% the percentage of Americans living in states with legalized gay marriage. But 36 states still ban same-sex marriage, and the high court's ruling doesn't extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians elsewhere. Those battles will continue in the states, the courts -- and eventually may reach the Supreme Court again.

Several of the court's most conservative justices dissented from the rulings, arguing that backers of California's Proposition 8 ban deserved their day in court and that the federal government can refuse to recognize gay marriage -- something that they noted during oral arguments in March was newer than cellphones and the Internet.

The rulings were rendered on the 10th anniversary of the court's landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down state sodomy laws. That sweeping opinion, written by Kennedy, had given gay rights activists hope that he would follow suit by writing the decision striking down DOMA.

Groups opposed to same-sex marriage, on the other hand, had urged the court to let the debate play out in the states -- something Scalia said deserved to happen.

Several factors were breaking in favor of gay marriage as the justices prepared to render their verdicts:

The public increasingly is on the side of same-sex marriage, perhaps easing some justices' hesitance to get out in front of so many states. In the latest Pew Research Center survey, 72% of Americans called it "inevitable."

A half dozen states have legalized the practice since last fall: Maine, Maryland, Washington, Delaware, Rhode Island and Minnesota. Waiting in the wings are several others, from New Jersey to Hawaii.

The plaintiffs in the two cases arrived at the Supreme Court this year on a roll, having prevailed at federal district and appeals courts on opposite sides of the country.

The plaintiffs in the California case -- a gay couple and lesbian couple -- were in court Wednesday to witness the decision. In the congratulatory phone call to them from Obama, the president said: "We're proud of you guys, and we're proud to have this in California."

The two decisions were greeted with celebration among gay rights advocates and dread by religious and social conservatives.

CALIFORNIA's SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BAN

The court paved the way for same-sex marriages to resume throughout California by saying it did not have the authority to decide the case.

The decision did not directly overturn the same-sex marriage ban California voters approved in 2008. Instead, it sent the question back to a federal district court in California, which had barred state officials from enforcing the law.

"Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit," Roberts wrote.

Kennedy said in dissent that the court should have weighed in on same-sex marriages, just as it did on federal benefits. Joined by Alito, Thomas and Sotomayor, he said the court's decision "fails to abide by precedent and misapplies basic principles of justiciability."

The California Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriages four years ago, and quickly about 18,000 couples tied the knot. That led opponents of same-sex marriage to demand a voter referendum outlawing gay marriage, which passed narrowly in November 2008.

The original lawsuit against Proposition 8 has prevailed at both federal courts leading to the Supreme Court. The district court said the law violated the Constitution's equal protection clause because it was "premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples." The appeals court ruled more narrowly that voters could not take away a right previously granted to the state's gays and lesbians.

Since then, after a string of state bans on gay marriage, a half dozen states have legalized the practice Illinois could be next, possibly followed by New Jersey, Oregon and Hawaii.

Rather than remaining on the sidelines in the California debate, the Obama administration came out forcefully this year against the ban and helped to argue the case in court. It singled out California and seven other states that allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, arguing they cannot deny the title of marriage.

Making the case for California's gay marriage proponents was Theodore Olson, the conservative former U.S. solicitor general who teamed up with liberal David Boies on the case. They were representing two couples: Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, lesbian parents of four sons, and Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami, a gay couple who want to marry and raise a family.

Arguing in support of Proposition 8 was Charles Cooper, the attorney representing the original proponents of the referendum who contend that marriage is based upon producing and raising children by a mother and father. They say forcing opponents to recognize same-sex marriages would infringe on their religious beliefs. And they say states and voters should be left alone to make their own decisions.

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT

In the broader DOMA decision, the court's Kennedy-plus-liberals majority forcefully criticized what it called unconstitutional discrimination.

In a decision deeply skeptical of laws that treat gays and lesbians differently from others, the justices invalidated a section of the law that denied federal benefits to married gays and lesbians in a dozen states, from Maine to Washington, and the District of Columbia. That measure, the court declared, existed primarily "to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage."

The decision signaled that the high court may look more critically in the future at other laws that single out same-sex couples. It said the law's denial of federal benefits unconstitutionally discriminates against them.

"No legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity," Kennedy wrote. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

Still, Kennedy was careful to say that the decision applied only to "lawful marriages" performed in states that already recognize same-sex unions. It has no immediate effect on the 36 other states whose laws forbid same-sex marriages.

But supporters of same-sex marriage said immediately that they had scored a decisive victory. President Obama said on Twitter that the decision is "a historic step forward" for marriage equality. Later, he said in a statement that "we are a people who declared that we are all created equal â?? and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

In a typically vehement dissent, Scalia accused his colleagues of a "jaw-dropping" overreach and hinted that the decision could have broader implications: "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition," he wrote.

Kennedy's decision did not disagree with that assessment. DOMA was invalid in part, he said, because it "instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others."

The decision was greeted with celebration among gay rights advocates and dread by religious and social conservatives. It also created an instant celebrity in Windsor, the lesbian widow who challenged the law based on a six-figure estate tax bill that a heterosexual spouse would not have received.

The Defense of Marriage Act has two main sections, only one of which - defining marriage in federal laws as between a man and a woman - was being contested. Because of it, benefits and programs enjoyed by opposite-sex couples aren't available to gays and lesbians under federal employment, health, tax and other laws. The other provision shields states from having to recognize gay marriages from other states.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2011 that the Obama administration considered DOMA unconstitutional and no longer would defend it in court. Into the breach stepped House Republicans, who argued - to no avail in lower courts - that the law saves needed federal resources and ensures they are distributed equally among the states.

At last count, there were 1,138 provisions in federal laws that listed marital status as a factor in determining benefits, rights and privileges. The list, prepared by the Government Accountability Office, was most recently updated in 2003.

The most prevalent are tax laws. Despite their marriage certificates, gay and lesbian spouses cannot get tax-free health benefits from their employers. That alone costs them about $1,000 a year on average, says Gary Gates, a demographer who studies gay and lesbian trends at the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute.

Gays and lesbians can't file joint federal tax returns, as heterosexual married couples can, which often saves families thousands of dollars. And when a spouse dies, the widow or widower is liable for inheritance taxes; heterosexual couples enjoy a marital deduction.

That estate tax problem is what prompted Windsor to file her lawsuit. She stands to win back the $363,000 she paid in 2009 on the estate of her deceased spouse, Thea Spyer - a tax she would not have owed if their marriage was recognized by the federal government.

A few dozen other same-sex married couples, widows and widowers also stand to gain because they had filed legal challenges or tax claims that have not expired, says Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. For all other same-sex married couples, the impact of the court's ruling would be prospective, not retroactive.